PrepTest 105, Section 1, Question 14
If an artist receives a public subsidy to(63 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AAn artist has(24 more words not shown)
- BA financially successful(14 more words not shown)
- CA subsidy should(31 more words not shown)
- DThe provider of(20 more words not shown)
- EAn artist requesting(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Would repayment be a good thing, or is it something the artist owes? Those are different claims. I can see why returning the money would be useful: it could fund other artists. But saying that people would welcome help doesn't, by itself, establish a moral obligation to provide it.
Imagine someone who received help early in a career. There may now be many people in the same position who would appreciate that person's money. We still need a reason to say the person is obligated to give it. Here, I'd want to know what makes accepting this subsidy carry a duty to repay when the project succeeds.
What we’re looking for
This question asks for a principle that helps justify the conclusion. My first prediction is a rule connecting the benefit to others in a similar position with an obligation to return the support. That would bridge the author's reason and the claim about what the artist must do.
Working the answers
- A
Urging others to apply isn't repaying the agency. An artist could give excellent advice about obtaining subsidies while keeping every dollar of the successful project's proceeds. A duty to encourage applications doesn't establish the repayment duty the conclusion asserts.
- B
Acknowledging that success has causes besides merit doesn't require giving money back. An artist could recognize luck, assistance, or timing and still dispute an obligation to repay. We need a principle about that obligation, not merely what the artist should acknowledge.
- CCorrect
This takes a different route from the initial prediction: it treats the subsidy as a debt. Then it limits when that debt may properly be forgiven to two possibilities. Either the artist cannot repay, or the agency isn't interested in repayment.
Neither exception fits the situation described. The project is successful enough for the artist to repay, and the agency would welcome the money to help other artists. So under C's rule, the debt shouldn't be forgiven. That supplies a reason the artist owes repayment. The fact that such debts are routinely forgiven doesn't settle when forgiveness is morally justified; C expressly distinguishes the routine practice from the proper rule.
- D
This tells the agency how to choose recipients: favor projects likely to succeed financially. It doesn't tell a recipient what to do after succeeding. A rule for awarding money and a rule requiring its return are separate matters.
- E
Seeking a bank loan before applying for a subsidy concerns the order in which the artist should pursue funding. Our artist has already received the subsidy and succeeded. Even if applying for a loan first were required, that wouldn't establish a duty to return a subsidy afterward.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.